Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Would the individuals of the media branch of ISIS count as terrorists if they are only involved in spreading panic through psyops, and not actual militancy?

I'd say yes, because they're definitely threatening violence, and they're also part of the recruiting pipeline for ISIS.

[Loud Whispers]

I'd say yes, because they're definitely threatening violence, and they're also part of the recruiting pipeline for ISIS.

So I suppose then the political goal /striking terror to achieve it irregardless of means does not necessarily require militancy. Oh! Cyber-terrorism, that's a great example.

The same reason the USA invaded Afghanistan, the same reason Israel bombs the fuck out of and occasionally invades Palestine, and the same reason Hamas shoots rockets at and attacks Israel? "Blood calls out for blood."

Worrying then for those who invite those from conflicts or places associated with conflict - but if that were entirely true, then things would be considerably worse for places like Europe. In Europe there have been ethnic clashes in riots between Turks and Kurds related to what's happening in Turkey, but it hasn't turned into terrorism against one another - even though both are heavily invested in the Turkish troubles. Take for example the Lee Rigby killings where this is especially odd; why were Nigerian converts to Sunnism more empathetic Sunni militants in Afghanistan than their adopted home country? Clash of religious and national identity seems like an appealing theory, but it's not altogether satisfying, as if it is so it does not answer why the clash turns to violence. If the Orlando killing for example was about a repressed gay Afghan in a Christian American country having too much internal conflict, why is there so much conflict within and without? These are general questions btw, not directed at you Shadowlord xD

[Flying Dice]

Would the individuals of the media branch of ISIS count as terrorists if they are only involved in spreading panic through psyops, and not actual militancy?

I think there's been a miscommunication here: Militancy has to do with aggression, combativeness, and extremism, not with taking part in combat operations, i.e. military, though for obvious reasons many military and paramilitary organizations are also militant. Hence "militant atheist", "militant feminist", &c.--those aren't exaggerations, they're descriptive of the extreme stances and actions taken.

A pure backline psyops member of ISIS would still be a militant. And, though they might not commit violence themselves, they make use of violence committed by others in association with their work. They belong and contribute to an organization which conducts terrorist activities, and they work to enhance the efficacy of said organization's terrorist actions. Thus, they are terrorists, for the same reason that a REMF enlisted in the National Guard is still a soldier and an Internal Affairs agent is still a LEO, even if their work has little overlap with what is commonly thought of as the core elements of their occupation.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh yeah, that works very well. I've tended to see militant defined as a person "as alike a soldier" but who is not a soldier, employing violence without state sanction, but a level of organized and trained violence that is above thuggery

I think your definition works better

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, it can be difficult, because of lot of the language we use in English to discuss extremism shares roots with the language we use to discuss violence. There's also, I think, the common lay-person ignorance of nuance that crops up in a lot of places. For example, a typical ISIS member could be described as a militant radical Islamic terrorist and none of that description is redundant, but a lot of people would use any of those words as synonyms (including, heh, "Islamic" with any of the other three  ).

It's why I beat the prescriptivist drum so hard when it comes to language, because problems of clarity such as this are what arise when you allow language to be defined by the ignorance of its laziest and most inept users. English isn't always particularly well-defined or distinct, but we at least have commonly agreed-upon definitions which can be referenced in confusion, rather than falling back on the feels-before-reals approach to meaning.

[Loud Whispers]

To go one step further, the typical ISIS member could be described as a fundamentalist Islamic militant radical Islamist terrorist fringe Wahhabi so-called Muslim

[Sheb]

For example, a typical ISIS member could be described as a militant radical Islamic terrorist and none of that description is redundant,

I'm not sure. Radical seems pretty redundant there, I've never heard of a moderate militant Islamic terrorist.

[Dorsidwarf]

If Greenpeace are terrorists, so is the French government :/

Unpleasant =\= terrorist

Radical =\= terrorist

[Reelya]

State terrorism is a legitimate concept, which can extend across borders. Plenty of nations which are seen as liberal at home have used terroristic methods to control what they see as their colonies. I include pretty much all the major powers in this, since they've all done it.

[martinuzz]

For example, a typical ISIS member could be described as a militant radical Islamic terrorist and none of that description is redundant,

I'm not sure. Radical seems pretty redundant there, I've never heard of a moderate militant Islamic terrorist.

Well you could call the guy wo stabbed the two police officers moderate. He let the kid live.
If you compare that to the amount of children found in the mass graves in Syria and Iraq, you could say he was moderate.

You could even argue he's not a terrorist, but an enemy combatant. France is at war with IS. He did not target random civilians, he attacked police officers, which are a fringe case of 'legit target' in time of war (although the wife apparently had only an administrative job with the police, so she probably counts as a civilian)

[Antioch]

I don't get how he got only 3 years in prison for recruiting for IS.

In my opinion that should be a lifelong prison sentence, just like wilfully fighting for IS.

[Loud Whispers]

You could even argue he's not a terrorist, but an enemy combatant. France is at war with IS. He did not target random civilians, he attacked police officers, which are a fringe case of 'legit target' in time of war (although the wife apparently had only an administrative job with the police, so she probably counts as a civilian)

You cannot be at war with a non-state Martinuzz.

[Frumple]

For example, a typical ISIS member could be described as a militant radical Islamic terrorist and none of that description is redundant,

I'm not sure. Radical seems pretty redundant there, I've never heard of a moderate militant Islamic terrorist.

Eh, there's almost certainly some out there. You don't exactly have to have extremist beliefs to engage in a terrorism campaign, and it's pretty likely there's been a number of folks that were otherwise moderate people that engaged in terrorist attacks against an invading force or particularly despotic government. When you're dealing with an extremely asymmetric force situation it... really is pretty close to the only way to do something approaching significant damage. Or at least acts that are completely indistinguishable from terrorism save an arbitrary relabeling based on target.

[Sheb]

You could even argue he's not a terrorist, but an enemy combatant. France is at war with IS. He did not target random civilians, he attacked police officers, which are a fringe case of 'legit target' in time of war (although the wife apparently had only an administrative job with the police, so she probably counts as a civilian)

You cannot be at war with a non-state Martinuzz.

Hollande disagree with you though.

[martinuzz]

You cannot be at war with a non-state Martinuzz.

Not completely true, there has been jurisprudence in that regard, to extend the warfare rules and definitions of the Geneva convention to armed conflicts where one or more parties are not a state, by international court, to make it possible to sue non-state actors as war criminals.